Canberra confusion
Last edited by scorpion63; 23rd Jul 2013 at 14:21.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like a PR.9 tip to me too I must admit, but how and more to the point why? perhaps they were using both types? hell, I don't know! Lets hope we can get some more photos, but I'd like to see more than one, or am I asking too much 
The outer wing is not removable as a unit, only the tips leading edge tanks (if it's a wet wing) and flap and aileron shrouds can be removed without destroying the wing.
John
The outer wing is not removable as a unit, only the tips leading edge tanks (if it's a wet wing) and flap and aileron shrouds can be removed without destroying the wing.
John
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another interesting photo of the aircraft here :-
If you look carefully you can see the tip extension very clearly and the shape of the original wing tip. Also seems to be before the ailerons were modified as the trim tab is visible. Pity this was before the tanks were fitted though!
If you look carefully you can see the tip extension very clearly and the shape of the original wing tip. Also seems to be before the ailerons were modified as the trim tab is visible. Pity this was before the tanks were fitted though!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting photo indeed, I thought that was the shape of the original wing tip too, but I reckon it's a mark left from the tip tank. That is the position it is on the PR.9's. I thought about the possibility of extending the tip by adding skin to the original tip profile but that would be, well stupid! it makes far more sense to bolt the newly designed structure to the part of the wing meant for the job. As I think I've said before the wing on the PR.9 is just a development of the B(I)8 which in turn is a modification of the B.5, B.6 PR.7 wing with an increase in chord and span.
I've attached three drawings of the PR.7 wing and tip which I hope will demonstrate the structure of the Canberra wing tip.
this is the T.22 wing but it's exactly the same as the PR.7 in the way it's attached.
John
I've attached three drawings of the PR.7 wing and tip which I hope will demonstrate the structure of the Canberra wing tip.
this is the T.22 wing but it's exactly the same as the PR.7 in the way it's attached.
John
Last edited by canberrasig; 30th Jul 2013 at 11:06. Reason: The T.22 wing is bottom drawing
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we have to bear in mind that the photo shows what was in effect the "prototype" so it might have been more of a "botch" job on this aircraft!
My thinking here is that this first tip extension was not completed in the standard fashion (as described in the above drawings) and so the internal structure might be different to that found in a PR9.
The above photo does seem to show the evidence of the standard wing tip buried under the extension, so my guess (and it is just a guess!) is that this aircraft was modified differently to standard PR9s, and still has the existing B2/6-type wing tip still attached, but with some sort of internal structural modification to support the extra wing tip extension, and that this extension was somehow strong enough to support tip tanks?
Well it's a theory at least!
My thinking here is that this first tip extension was not completed in the standard fashion (as described in the above drawings) and so the internal structure might be different to that found in a PR9.
The above photo does seem to show the evidence of the standard wing tip buried under the extension, so my guess (and it is just a guess!) is that this aircraft was modified differently to standard PR9s, and still has the existing B2/6-type wing tip still attached, but with some sort of internal structural modification to support the extra wing tip extension, and that this extension was somehow strong enough to support tip tanks?
Well it's a theory at least!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely photo John, thanks for that!
Sadly, no reply from FAST at all. Not even an acknowledgement, so I guess the mystery of the mis-placed pods is destined never to be solved... ?
Sadly, no reply from FAST at all. Not even an acknowledgement, so I guess the mystery of the mis-placed pods is destined never to be solved... ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiny photograph taken during Concorde trials from Filton. It just about illustrates the aircraft's plan view.
Wonder if anyone else out there might have any photographs from the aircraft's days on the Concorde programme? Worth a shot!
Wonder if anyone else out there might have any photographs from the aircraft's days on the Concorde programme? Worth a shot!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following may answer some of your questions perhaps
Flight 1 June 1961
English Electric Canberra PR.9
English Electric subcontracted to Luton the task of modifying the Canberra for use as a high-altitude photo-reconnaissance machine.
The alterations required were even more extensive than those superficially obvious, but in particular the 7,5001b Avons were replaced by 11,2501b Avon RA.24s, the intake cowling and accessories were entirely redesigned, the inner wing was extended in chord to reduce t/c ratio, the outer wings were extended in span and terminated in square tips and the whole airframe was refined to reap the maximum reward from the great increase in thrust and altitude rendered possible.
Luton handled all the engineering alterations, and converted Canberra WH793.
Flight development showed the need for various modifications, one of the most important changes being the incorporation of powered ailerons, and the production aircraft manufactured by Short & Harland have a hinged nose housing an ejection seat for the navigator.
Flight 8 May 1969
Once again the photographic reconnaissance version followed the bomber version; this time it was the PR.9 which followed the B(l).8.
The PR.9 was developed by Shorts at Belfast and externally resembled the B(l).8 in that it retained the fighter- type cockpit.
The remainder of the front end was, however, redesigned and incorporated an opening nose which swung open to starboard to permit crew entry.
This variant also had redesigned wings of increased span and greater chord on the sections inboard of the engines, which were now Avon 206s of 10.0501b thrust each.
With the modified wing and higher powered engines the PR.9 was able to reach a much higher altitude.
The first genuine PR.9, XH129, flew on July 27, 1958.
The revised wing shape and engines were tested prior to the first flight of XH129, by fitting them, together with other internal modifications, to PR.7, WH793, this aircraft making its first flight on July 8, 1955.
Flight 1 June 1961
English Electric Canberra PR.9
English Electric subcontracted to Luton the task of modifying the Canberra for use as a high-altitude photo-reconnaissance machine.
The alterations required were even more extensive than those superficially obvious, but in particular the 7,5001b Avons were replaced by 11,2501b Avon RA.24s, the intake cowling and accessories were entirely redesigned, the inner wing was extended in chord to reduce t/c ratio, the outer wings were extended in span and terminated in square tips and the whole airframe was refined to reap the maximum reward from the great increase in thrust and altitude rendered possible.
Luton handled all the engineering alterations, and converted Canberra WH793.
Flight development showed the need for various modifications, one of the most important changes being the incorporation of powered ailerons, and the production aircraft manufactured by Short & Harland have a hinged nose housing an ejection seat for the navigator.
Flight 8 May 1969
Once again the photographic reconnaissance version followed the bomber version; this time it was the PR.9 which followed the B(l).8.
The PR.9 was developed by Shorts at Belfast and externally resembled the B(l).8 in that it retained the fighter- type cockpit.
The remainder of the front end was, however, redesigned and incorporated an opening nose which swung open to starboard to permit crew entry.
This variant also had redesigned wings of increased span and greater chord on the sections inboard of the engines, which were now Avon 206s of 10.0501b thrust each.
With the modified wing and higher powered engines the PR.9 was able to reach a much higher altitude.
The first genuine PR.9, XH129, flew on July 27, 1958.
The revised wing shape and engines were tested prior to the first flight of XH129, by fitting them, together with other internal modifications, to PR.7, WH793, this aircraft making its first flight on July 8, 1955.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bradford
Age: 64
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately there was more than one Canberra used on the Concorde program, but we may get lucky, lets hope! Another point WH793 unlike the PR.9 had Avon RA23's (RA206) a small detail and no help with the wing.
John
John
Last edited by canberrasig; 8th Aug 2013 at 07:50.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Info I have to hand says 793 had 10,500lb thrust RA.28 (does not state but I assume Mk 208), where as 129 the first PR9 flew with 11,500lb thrust Avon RA.24 Mk 206.
"The remainder of the front end was, however, redesigned and incorporated an opening nose which swung open to starboard to permit crew entry."
The first production PR9 had a glazed nose almost exactly the same as the B(I)8 but following it's loss with the loss of the Navigator all subsequent PR9's were built with the hinged, solid nose with an ejection seat for the Nav.
The first production PR9 had a glazed nose almost exactly the same as the B(I)8 but following it's loss with the loss of the Navigator all subsequent PR9's were built with the hinged, solid nose with an ejection seat for the Nav.
